Dale Edwin Ho
How Judge Ho decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss a criminal case, he treats the court's role as limited but NOT a rubber stamp: where the government seeks dismissal WITHOUT prejudice on rationales he finds pretextual, he will exercise his 'limited discretion' to dismiss WITH prejudice to protect the defendant and stop the charges from being used as future leverage. Counsel litigating a Rule 48(a) dismissal before him should expect the stated reasons to be scrutinized on the record.
“The Court declines, in its limited discretion under Rule 48(a), to endorse that outcome. Instead, it dismisses this case with prejudice---meaning that the Government may not bring the charges in the Indictment against Mayor Adams in the future.”
Reads contracts and term sheets strictly to determine WHICH entity is actually bound: a signature qualified to a limited period or a non-signatory affiliate will not be held to obligations the document assigns to a different entity. A breach-of-contract plaintiff must sue the entity the contract actually binds.
“WOGA moves to dismiss, arguing that only WOHCF, not WOGA, is bound by the provisions of the contract relied upon by Soleimani. For the reasons set forth below, WOGA's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.”
Favors judicial economy and the first-filed rule: when a substantially similar action was filed first in another district, he will transfer rather than reach arbitration or dismissal motions, leaving those to the transferee court. Between the S.D.N.Y. and E.D.N.Y. he treats most Section 1404(a) convenience factors as neutral, so the existence of a related first-filed case dominates.
“Based on the totality of the circumstances, and following the first-filed rule, the Court holds that Defendants have met their burden of demonstrating that a transfer to the Eastern District of New York, where a parallel action is pending, would be in the interests of convenience and fairness.”
Procedural preferences
Strong, repeatedly-applied commitment to the presumption of public access: in the Adams matter he granted press motions to unseal CIPA orders and search-warrant materials, set short deadlines for any opposition, and quoted Second Circuit authority emphasizing immediate access. Parties seeking to keep filings sealed before him should expect a narrow, well-justified request (e.g. redacting only phone numbers and email addresses), not blanket sealing.
“the Department's Motion to Seal is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The documents in question ... shall be filed under seal in unredacted form with access limited to the Court and the relevant parties; versions on the public docket shall be filed with redactions limited to phone numbers and email addresses.”
Cautions
He will scrutinize the government's stated reasons closely and say so plainly on the record even while granting the relief requested -- finding a proffered rationale 'pretextual' or describing a deal as a 'bargain.' At the same time he is careful to separate the integrity of line prosecutors from his criticism of a policy decision. Do not assume an unopposed or government-sought motion will be granted on the terms requested.
“All of this suggests that the 'appearances of impropriety' rationale is not just thin, but pretextual. ... Everything here smacks of a bargain: dismissal of the Indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court GRANTS the motion to transfer venue.”
“The Court does not address the request for consolidation, or the motion to compel arbitration and motion to dismiss, ECF No. 18, leaving those decisions to the Eastern District of New York.”
“For the reasons discussed below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. ... Accordingly, Plaintiff's reasonable accommodation claims are dismissed. ... Accordingly, because Plaintiff has not set forth any allegations that her termination was motivated by discrimination, Defendants' motion to dismiss any employment discrimination claims arising from her termination is granted.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint are GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate ECF Nos. 61, 64, 66, to mail a copy of this Order to pro se Plaintiff, and to close the case. SO ORDERED.”
“In sum, all four parts of the test for res judicata are satisfied here. ... Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED on res judicata grounds, and the Court need not reach the other grounds for dismissal Defendants have raised. ... For the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate ECF Nos. 33 and 35.”
“For the reasons given above, the Government's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The parties shall meet and confer and file a proposed form of judgment for so-ordering by September 24, 2024.”
“For the reasons given above, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED IN FULL. The class is certified consistent with the Report's Recommendation. See R&R at 38. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate ECF Nos. 128 and 175.”
“The Housing Defendants' motion to seal certain sensitive medical information submitted in connection with their objections to the Report, see ECF No. 175, is GRANTED. No party objects to the motion. ... Here, the Court concludes that sealing is justified and that the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to the protection of Plaintiff's private health information.”
“ORDER granting 15 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 23 Motion to Stay; granting 25 Motion for Leave to File Document. ... Because Plaintiff's motion is granted, Defendant's motion to dismiss and motion to stay are DENIED AS MOOT.”
“It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED. This dismissal is without prejudice, as Plaintiff proceeds pro se and has not yet amended his pleadings.”
“Here, for the reasons stated above, Mr. Gerard's Motion to Amend is GRANTED, and his Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Here, for the reasons stated above, Mr. Gerard's Motion to Amend is GRANTED, and his Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Upon reviewing the latest submissions from the parties and applicable guidance from the Second Circuit regarding the issue of reasonable accommodation under the ADA, the Court concludes that reconsideration of its prior rulings on Mr. Gerard's reasonable accommodation and cooperative dialogue claims is appropriate.”
“ORDER granting #5 Motion to Remand to State Court. On May 15, 2026, the Plaintiff in this case requested the document at ECF No. 1-4 be placed under temporary seal. That request is GRANTED pending resolution of Plaintiff's forthcoming letter motion to seal. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to seal ECF No. 1-4 in this case. SO ORDERED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motions to Postpone the effective date of the termination of Yemen's TPS designation are GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate ECF No. 5 in Case 26 Civ. 2103 and ECF No. 22 in Case 26 Civ. 2280.”
“Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS the Government to produce by 12:00 p.m. on April 14, 2026 the certified administrative record pertinent to the decision to terminate TPS for nationals from Yemen in the above-captioned case and in related case 26 Civ. 2103.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for sanctions is DENIED. Defendant Columbia University is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and to file proof of service on the docket.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Judge Ho was commissioned 2023-08-18, so his docket is young. The current docket is dominated by a wave of alien-detainee habeas petitions, alongside a federal criminal docket and a mix of civil cases. Earlier-tenure dockets (2023-2024 filings) show ADA Title III, IDEA / civil-rights-education fee cases against the New York City Department of Education (which settle administratively), FDCPA/consumer, contract, civil forfeiture, FLSA labor, motor-vehicle tort, product liability, and immigration matters. Many terminated civil cases resolved by settlement or voluntary dismissal. This reflects current assignments plus a small terminated sample, not a tenure-wide caseload.
Put Judge Ho's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Ho actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Ho's own signed orders and cites them.